a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.
now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.
Vidqun every time you write something you undermine your grandiose claims about your professional qualifications.
Your question about the evolution of cancer is possibly the dumbest thing I have read on JWN since you accused scientists of being disciples of Dagon.
For the third time - What is the most significant difference between the human and primate knee joints?
a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.
now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.
Now, the difference between the human and primate knee is as important. That's one of the reasons why they are classified as they are. - Vidqun
So how do you explain hominin fossils of knee joints millions of years old that are designed for real upright walking like modern humans but come from species with cranium capacities of primates and show a mosaic of primate and human traits?
For example, teeth, jaws, wrist joints, hands, hip joints, skull features such as muscle attachment, the location of the foramen magnum, anatomy of the feet etc etc etc
You didn't answer my question. What is the most significant difference between the human and primate knee joints? You are a professional anatomist so this should be easy.
a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.
now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.
The fact they they walked upright has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Some apes do that. - Vidqun
No they don't.
Walking upright doesn't prove anything. - Vidqun
Yes it really does.
In our previous conversation you told me about a very impressive array of professional qualifications that you have. I am certain it included anatomy.
So what are some of the anatomical differences between humans who walk upright and primates who can imitate upright walking for short distances?
How about the knee for example? What is the most significant difference between the human and primate knee joints?
If you are stuck let me know and I will give you a clue.
a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.
now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.
Vidqun - Australopithecus, literally "Southern Apes" were hominin ancestors of our genus. They walked upright.
Australopithecus sediba shows features of the transition from partial arboreality to one primarily adapted to bipedal walking.
We have an embarrassment of riches of pre-human fossils. Even if we had none at all, the conclusive proof of human evolution from non-human ancestors is in your DNA.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Kate this thread is about a very specific feature of chemistry.
It has nothing to do with atheism. Nobody converts to atheism. An atheist is somebody who fails to be impressed by the grandiose claims of theism. You don't believe in the god of theism therefore you are already an atheist.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Kate - A few days ago you started a thread specifically designed to damage my reputation. I won't be sending any Facebook requests.
If you think you have evidence of something relevant you can describe it here. If it's an image and it won't upload it's probably too big, try reducing it.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Kate - Just post a link here or a description.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
BTW thanks for proof reading for me and picking up on my grammar mistakes.
That's a free service.
Look at your messenger on Facebook I have sent you photographic evidence
Facebook must have lost it in cyberspace.
Photographic evidence of what exactly?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
can I change my mind again
About what?
This was on Facebook
What was?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Clearly you're [sic] chemistry is correct and mine is incorrect... I am sorry about all the errors I have made you are right. - Kate
At last!
